MUTHUSWAMI MUDALIYAR Vs. SUNAMBEDU MUTHUKUMARASWAMI MUDALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this appeal is one of pure law, relating to the inheritance of a Hindu gentleman who died in the year 1879. No facts are in dispute. He had no issue except a daughter who died without issue in 1883; his widow, who became his heir, died in 1888; at that time, when his inheritance opened, he had no collateral relatives of the same gotra with himself; both parties claim as bandhus or cognates; two of the plaintiffs are the deceased's first cousins once removed, being sons of his father's father's sister, and the third plaintiff is one degree more remote; the defendants claim under a half-brother of the deceased's mother.

(2.) THE text of the Mitakshara which governs the question raised on these facts (Clause ii., Section 6) is, as translated by Colebrooke, as follows: On failure of gotrajas the bandhus are heirs. Bandhus are of three kinds, related to the person himself [atma bandhu] to his father [pitri-bandhu] or to his mother [matri bandhu] as is declared by the following text: The sons of his own father's sister, the sons of his own mother's sister and the sons of his own maternal uncle must be considered his atma bandhus. The sons of his father's paternal aunt, the sons of his father's maternal aunt and the sons of his father's maternal uncle must be reckoned as his pitri bandhus. The sons of his mother's paternal aunt, the sons of his mother's maternal aunt and the sons of his mother's maternal uncle must be reckoned as his matri bandhus.

(3.) THE plaintiffs, being the sons and grandson of the paternal aunt of the deceased's father, are expressly mentioned as falling within the second kind of bandhus who cannot succeed until after failure of the first kind. They are, therefore, reduced to contend that the quoted text contains an exhaustive list of bandhu successors, and that as the deceased's maternal uncle is not mentioned in it he cannot succeed. Both Courts below have decided against that contention.